In last month's issue of TPT, Michael Sobel turns our attention to the increasing number and broader population of students taking physics courses and urges us to reconsider how to better cater to their needs. We applaud the author for focusing our attention on this important issue. However, we find his proposal for teaching physics to nonscience majors problematic.
REFERENCES
1.
Michael
Sobel
, “Physics for the non-scientist: A middle way
,” Phys. Teach.
47
, 346
–349
(Sept. 2009
).2.
D. I.
Dykstra
Jr., “Against realist instruction: Superficial success masking catastrophic failure and an alternative
,” Constructivist Foundations
1
(1
), 40
–60
(2005
).3.
E.
Brewe
, L.
Kramer
, and G.
O'Brien
, “Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Rev.
5
(1
), 013102
(2009
);E. Etkina and J. P. Mestre, Implications of Learning Research for Teaching Science to Non-Science Majors (SENCER, Harrisburg, PA, 2004);
V. K.
Otero
and K. E.
Gray
, “Attitudinal gains across multiple universities using the Physics and Everyday Thinking curriculum
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Rev.
4
, 020104
(2008
).4.
A. Newell and H. A. Simon, Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972).
5.
R. J. Sternberg and P. A. Frensch, Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991).
6.
M. T. H.
Chi
, P. J.
Feltovich
, and R.
Glaser
, “Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices
,” Cognitive Sci.
5
(2
), 121
–152
(1981
).7.
B. Korsunsky, “Cognitive Mechanisms of Solving Non-Trivial Physics Problems,” Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, 2003.
8.
M. E. Martinez, “What is problem solving?” Phi Delta Kappan 79 (8) (1998).
9.
A. B.
Arons
, “Uses of the past: Reflections on United States physics curriculum development 1955 to 1990
,” Interchange
24
(1
), 105
–128
(1993
).10.
W. K.
Adams
, K. K.
Perkins
, N.
Podolefsky
, M.
Dubson
, N. D.
Finkelstein
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “Anew instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Rev.
2
(1
), 010101
(2006
);E. F.
Redish
, J. M.
Saul
, R. N.
Steinberg
, and Educational Resources Information Center
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
(3
), 212
–224
(March 1998
).11.
J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
12.
J. D. Bransford and D. L. Schwartz, “Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications,” in Review of Research in Education (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 61–100.
13.
J. S.
Brown
, A.
Collins
, and P.
Duguid
, “Situated cognition and the culture of learning
,” Educ. Res.
18
(1
), 32
(1989
);A. Collins, J. S. Brown, and S. E. Newman, “Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics,” in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, edited by Lauren B. Resnick (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989), pp. 453–494;
J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, 1991);
E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
14.
P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 637
–644
(July 1992
);P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 627
–636
(July 1992
).15.
P. B.
Kohl
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 010111
(2008
);N.
Lasry
and M. W.
Aulls
, “The effect of multiple internal representations on context-rich instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
75
(11
), 1030
–1037
(Nov. 2007
).16.
P. B.
Kohl
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Effects of representation on students solving physics problems: A fine-grained characterization
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Rev.
2
(1
), 010106
(2006
).17.
H. Kiddle, A Text-book on Physics: Being a Short and Complete Course Based Upon the Larger Work of Ganot, for the Use of Academies, High School, Etc. (W. Wood & Company, 1883);
R. A. Millikan, H. G. Gale, and W. R. Pyle, Elements of Physics (Ginn, 1927).
18.
A. L. Brown, “Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition,” in Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. I, edited by R. Glaser (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978);
J. H.
Flavell
, “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving
,” Nat. Intell.
12
, 231
–235
(1976
).19.
X.
Lin
, J. D.
Bransford
, C. E.
Hmelo
, R. J.
Kantor
, D. T.
Hickey
, T.
Secules
, A. J.
Petrosino
, S. R.
Goldman
, and ABDOS Key
, “Instructional design and development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue
,” Educ. Technol.
35
(5
), 53
–63
, (1995
).B. Y.
White
and J. R.
Frederiksen
, “Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students
,” Cognition Instr.
16
(1
), 3
–118
(1998
).20.
A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985);
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, “From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive theory and classroom practice,” Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (MIT Press, 1994), pp. 157–200.
21.
R. R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
(1
), 64
–74
(Jan. 1998
);I. A.
Halloun
and D.
Hestenes
, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
(11
), 1043
–1055
(Nov. 1985
);D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
(3&
rpar;, 141
–158
(March 1992
).22.
E.
Kim
and S. J.
Pak
, “Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 759
(July 2002
).23.
E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
24.
T. J.
Bing
and E. F.
Redish
, “Symbolic manipulators affect mathematical mindsets
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
, 418
(April 2008
);J.
Tuminaro
and E. F.
Redish
, “Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Rev.
3
, 020101
(2007
).25.
N.
Lasry
, E.
Mazur
, and J.
Watkins
, “Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(11
), 1066
–1069
(Nov. 2008
);S. J.
Pollock
, “Transferring transformations: Learning gains, student attitudes, and the impacts of multiple instructors in large lecture courses
,” in PERC Proceedings
(American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2006
), Vol. 818
, pp. 141
–144
;S. J.
Pollock
, “Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA
,” in PERC Proceedings
(American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2008
), Vol. 1064
, pp. 171
–174
;E. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, 2003). This book comes with a CD too.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2009
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
